>>942288135
>Zero liability
This term is used exclusively in financial contract law.
You're referring to the concept of being "unable to be held liable," and it has to be specific; WHY can they not be held liable? In the case of vaccines, ANY vaccine you had since 1988; 42 U.S. Code § 300aa-22, No manufacturer can be held civilly liable for your death or injury. The same law created a compensation program so that if you did have a reasonable claim, you could receive compensation through the VICS program (I think that's the name)
The logic is pretty simple:
If you had something which was a public health necessity, but it is also subject to the forces of the market, you would want to protect it.
If rubber glove manufacturers were liable for the gloves tearing under normal use, as is expected with them, they would likely be inundated with lawsuits, and consequently they would just stop manufacturing them to become more cash flow heavy. Then, all situations where you might need a rubber glove would become much more dangerous.
The government would be incentivized to make it more difficult to sue those glove manufacturers directly; but because that removes justice from people who were actually wrongly injured by a glove breaking, the government should (And did) create a system to retrieve the tax dollars that are used to shield the glove company.
This is actually how it works, and has worked since 1988.
